a. the domestic legislation of the state concerned does not afford due process of law for the protection of the right or rights that have allegedly been violated; b. the party alleging violation of his rights has been denied access to the remedies under domestic law or has been prevented from exhausting them; or c. there has been unwarranted delay in rendering a final judgment under the aforementioned remedies. 25. The Honduran State invoked the objection of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies in its reply to the petition and asserted that it is not admissible in accordance with Article 46(1) of the Convention. 13 The petitioners, however, say that almost seven years have elapsed since the events occurred, without the remedies available to them having been capable of identifying, prosecuting, and punishing those responsible. They also say that the trial is still at the preliminary enquiry stage, even though Article 174 of the Honduran Code of Criminal Procedures establishes a limit of 30 days for the preliminary enquiry. Based on the foregoing, they ask that the petition be found admissible in accordance with the exceptions provided at Article 46(2) of the Convention. 26. The Commission has repeatedly found that it is not enough for the State to assert nonexhaustion of domestic remedies for that objection to succeed. As the Inter-American Court of Human Rights has ruled, the State invoking this objection must also identify the domestic remedies that remain to be exhausted and show their effectiveness in such circumstances, which Honduras has not done. 27. In order to provide an adequate remedy for the alleged violations, which constitute crimes against public order, it was incumbent on the State, particularly in light of its obligation to take punitive action, to institute, ex officio, proceedings to identify, prosecute, and punish all those responsible, diligently pursuing every stage of the proceedings to a conclusion. In the opinion of the Commission, the seven years elapsed between the events and the date of the instant report has been more than enough for the Honduran State to determine responsibilities, initiate proceedings, and punish those responsible in the domestic sphere. 28. The Inter-American Court and the IACHR have repeatedly found that the general rule of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies recognizes the right of the State “to resolve the problem under its internal law before being confronted with an international proceeding,” 14 in this case, in the international jurisdiction of human rights, which “reinforces or complements” the domestic jurisdiction. 15 This general rule not only recognizes the above-cited right of the State, but imposes on it the duty to provide the persons under its jurisdiction with remedies that are suitable to address the infringement of a legal right and capable of producing the result for which they were designed. If the remedies offered by the State do not meet these requirements it is fitting to apply the exceptions contained in Article 46(2) of the Convention, which have been established with the aim of guaranteeing international action when remedies under domestic law and the domestic judicial system are not expeditious and capable of ensuring respect for the human rights of victims. 29. The Commission finds that in this case the domestic remedies have not been capable of redressing the infringement of a legal right, for which reason the exception provided in Article 46(2) (a) of the Convention applies. Also applicable is the exception established in section (c) of the same provision because there has been an unwarranted delay in rendering a decision under the domestic remedies, which eliminates any reasonable possibility of obtaining the remedy or result for which they were designed. This unwarranted delay of justice is incompatible with the obligation of the State to place suitable and effective remedies at the disposal of the persons under its jurisdiction. 13 Inter-Am. Ct. H.R., Castillo Páez Case, Preliminary Objections, Judgment of January 30, 1996, Series C. No. 24, para. 41. 14 Inter-Am. Ct. H.R., Velásquez Rodríguez Case, Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C., No. 4, para. 61. 15 Inter-Am. Ct. H.R., Velásquez Rodríguez Case, Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C., No. 4, para. 61. 5